that's not true man if you smoke just green with no batch that is not bad for you . Also weed is a medicine and poses health benefits. lets be honest if there is any drug that is safest to be doing then its weed. Its safer then any other drug and it doesn't totally fuck you up

There are minimal health benefits to weed unless your someone who is dealing with severe chronic pain and even then most doctors won't prescribe it unless you're on your deathbed. That's because of the risk of lung cancer. Weed has much more carcinogenic hydrocarbons (not to mention tar) in it than regular tobacco and because weed smokers inhale much deeper than regular cigarette smokers they're leaving their lungs exposed for a longer length in time.

So anyone who says smoking weed isn't bad for you are kidding themselves. They're justifying it to make it acceptable. And that's fine. I don't dance with Mary Jane anymore, but let's not kid ourselves and try and make weed a wonder drug here.

Bro I know kids who smoke weed everyday and get 90s in class . Its all about how you handle it . Millions of people have died from alcohol no one has died from smoking weed .

And i know kids who went from 90's to zero's. Get your head out of your ass, you sound like these two potheads in my health class that tried to convince the class that smoking weed improves your brain.

thats an assumption. you coulda took athletes from the special olympics, would you get those expected results?

i just think there is a valid point to weed as a potential PED. different bodies, different results. some people are dependent on it to actually be productive in their day

Letter N wrote:

Not really.

Laws/rules are based on the average.

If 100 athletes take HGH, 99 of them (probably 100) will become better
if 100 athletes smoke weed only a handful may see a performance boost, the greater majority would see a decrease in performance. Therefore it is not performance enhancing.

Skittles can make Marshawn Lynch run over your ass but if it doesn't work for a larger group than it's not performance enhancing, at best it's a weird chemical reaction for that person and most likely it's just a placebo.

thats an assumption. you coulda took athletes from the special olympics, would you get those expected results?

i just think there is a valid point to weed as a potential PED. different bodies, different results. some people are dependent on it to actually be productive in their day

Yes you would get expected results. I guarantee there are tests that show that marijuana adversely affects the majority of people.

As for your second point you say the magic word yourself, dependent. Dependency doesn't make something a PED, in fact the exact opposite. Heroin addicts cannot function without heroin, heroin is not a PED.

Lots of athletes drink coffee (caffeine) specifically to help performance. And what about those energy drinks with guarana stimulants (e.g. Red Bull). How come those substances aren't considered PEDs when they are non-natural substances specifically taken by athletes before events with full intention of enhancing performance?

Lots of athletes drink coffee (caffeine) specifically to help performance. And what about those energy drinks with guarana stimulants (e.g. Red Bull). How come those substances aren't considered PEDs when they are non-natural substances specifically taken by athletes before events with full intention of enhancing performance?

The question remains the same;

Where do you draw the line?

If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.